121–130 of 206 posts
Lol, ~30 years ago a created such a tool for DOS in Turbo Pascal for my own usage. Later i "upgrade" it to a Star Trek LCARS Design.... i have to look if i still had the sources. History repeats.
Yeah, I'll admit that the basic idea is not novel (I have a list of similar programs in the README). But I bet your tool doesn't work exactly the way I like! :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know much about Rust, but I have a hard time believing python's standard library wouldn't have all the required functionality covered (whether performance would be adequate is different question). I for one, really really like python for its comprehensive standard library.
Yes, Rust has a very different philosophy to the standard library. As soon as something enters the standard library its API is basically set in stone, since there's no versioning for the standard lib. As a consequence, Rust choses to keep a lot of "must-have" functionality in crates, where it can evolve and compete. (rather than just adding more and more HTTP clients to the standard lib like Python did :) )
Is that really all that different from Python?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say this about literally any criticism ever. I hate it and it blows chunks. It is the ultimate libertarian way of striking down any discussion: do not criticise, even in any small way, because it's a free market and you can just make another one, so never EVER even THINK of discussing anything. I'm not saying that there should be some kind of totalitarian regime that enforces naming, I'm simply saying that ye…
> I'm simply saying that yeah it kinda sucks that Rust devs tend towards cutesy names over ones that convey functionality. Are you using Rust? If not, why does it matter what they choose to name their libraries. This is my entire point, you're coming in as an outsider criticizing something that is clearly not a problem to Rust devs . If actual Rust developers are using them to the point where they're popular enough t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say this about literally any criticism ever. I hate it and it blows chunks. It is the ultimate libertarian way of striking down any discussion: do not criticise, even in any small way, because it's a free market and you can just make another one, so never EVER even THINK of discussing anything. I'm not saying that there should be some kind of totalitarian regime that enforces naming, I'm simply saying that ye…
> do not criticise Nobody said that. Of course you can criticize. But be aware that your criticism itself could be subject to criticism.
One thing I'd like is a cd command incantation that when given a file path, it just changes to the dir containing such file. It is such a common need (for me at least) that I'm surprised the standard cd doesn't do it already. I find myself using find or locate, then wanting to change to some file's directory, thus needing to manually delete the file's name before hitting enter. When you do that enough times you start…
function cdf { cd `dirname $1` } From my .zsrhc. This only does the file use case, it doesn't work for directories. Probably easy enough to add.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Rust has a very different philosophy to the standard library. As soon as something enters the standard library its API is basically set in stone, since there's no versioning for the standard lib. As a consequence, Rust choses to keep a lot of "must-have" functionality in crates, where it can evolve and compete. (rather than just adding more and more HTTP clients to the standard lib like Python did :) )
> As soon as something enters the standard library its API is basically set in stone Is that really all that different from Python?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm simply saying that yeah it kinda sucks that Rust devs tend towards cutesy names over ones that convey functionality. Are you using Rust? If not, why does it matter what they choose to name their libraries. This is my entire point, you're coming in as an outsider criticizing something that is clearly not a problem to Rust devs . If actual Rust developers are using them to the point where they're popular enough t…
I'm not an outsider, I have used rust before, though not extensively, not that this matters at all. An active rust developer has no more permission to criticise something about the rust ecosystem than someone new to rust
You've hyperfocused so much on my "criticism of your criticism" and the permissibility behind it that you chose to ignore the actual criticism I laid down.
I'm not continuing this either way since I've said my piece. Maybe step back and actually read my comments rather than focusing on me criticizing your critique.
Also, pot calling the kettle black. You spent an entire comment being offended over my critique.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "too many dependencies" meme is far too often an example of Chesterton's Fence. The answer to your question "How come a simple thing is more complex than I first thought?" is: "Because you've spent less time thinking about it than the author".
This isn't true, though. If this had been an older GNU utility, the dependencies likely would have been libterm and libc. Not because it would have been less complex, but because of the ecosystem choice in C applications to have larger, fully-featured libraries versus the micro-libraries Rust seems to have inherited from JavaScript conventions. Whether this is better or worse seems to be a matter of contention for a…
Yes, but then you are stuck with glibc + kitchen sink and GNU code quality, which is atrocious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
`cargo tree` output: tere v1.0.0 ├── clap v3.0.10 │ ├── bitflags v1.3.2 │ ├── indexmap v1.8.0 │ │ └── hashbrown v0.11.2 │ │ [build-dependencies] │ │ └── autocfg v1.1.0 │ ├── os_str_bytes v6.0.0 │ │ └── memchr v2.4.1 │ ├── strsim v0.10.0 │ ├── terminal_size v0.1.17 │ │ └── libc v0.2.126 │ └── textwrap v0.14.2 │ ├── smawk v0.3.1 │ ├── terminal_size v0.1.17 (*) │ ├── unicode-linebreak v0.1.2 │ │ [build-dependencies] │ │…
I don't know much about Rust, but I have a hard time believing python's standard library wouldn't have all the required functionality covered (whether performance would be adequate is different question). I for one, really really like python for its comprehensive standard library.
You can do a lot with pythons stdlib, and a lot of popular libraries (requests, for example) largely are just usability wrappers for underlying stdlib stuff.
Whereas with Rust, you have a very minimal std, and things you want to achieve are imported specifically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an outsider, I have used rust before, though not extensively, not that this matters at all. An active rust developer has no more permission to criticise something about the rust ecosystem than someone new to rust
But it does matter. If the people actively using the packages aren't complaining, then there isn't really a problem. You've hyperfocused so much on my "criticism of your criticism" and the permissibility behind it that you chose to ignore the actual criticism I laid down. I'm not continuing this either way since I've said my piece. Maybe step back and actually read my comments rather than focusing on me criticizing y…
Also it isn't a criticism of my criticism, it is an assertion that I should not be allowed to criticise at all, which is a totally different thing. Of course I am going to call that out
EDIT: I can't reply because rate limited
Please calm down. I'm not threatening you. I'm simply surprised that you make such inflammatory and aggressive comments on an account that is so closely tied to your professional life, that is all. I think you should reconsider doing so